gatekeeper_nginx_remove

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds beyond that by explicitly disclosing what gets destroyed: both the sites-available file and the sites-enabled symlink. This tells the agent the exact footprint of the destructive action, which is valuable context the annotations do not provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tightly crafted sentence that front-loads the action and precisely scopes the deletion. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter destructive operation, the description states the essential behavior. However, it does not mention how the slug is obtained, what happens if the site does not exist, or whether a reload/restart is triggered afterward — gaps that matter for an agent deciding how to invoke and verify the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'slug' parameter at all. An agent cannot determine what format the slug should take or where to obtain it, so the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Remove'), a clear resource ('an nginx site'), and the exact scope ('both sites-available file and sites-enabled symlink'). This distinguishes it from related gatekeeper_nginx tools like enable, disable, or status, leaving no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear that this tool is for complete removal, not mere disabling, which provides useful context against sibling tools like gatekeeper_nginx_disable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'completely' phrasing gives adequate usage context for a straightforward removal operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.